Turkish Prospective Teachers' Perceptions about Technology in Education

Öz

The aim of this study was determined as to analyze technology perceptions of Turkish prospective teachers who are in different universities, in terms of university membership and learning style variables. In the study, survey method was utilized by applying Kolb Learning Style Inventory and Technology Perception Scale. The study comprised of 518 elementary school prospective teachers. As a result of the ANOVA application, it has been found that there is a statistically significant main effect for university membership while there is no significant main effect for learning style variable and there is no significant interaction between university membership and learning style variables.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Technology perception, Learning styles, University membership

Öğretmen Adaylarının Eğitimde Teknoloji Kullanımına İlişkin Algıları

Öz

Bu çalışmada, farklı üniversitelerde öğrenim gören öğretmen adaylarının, teknolojiye ilişkin algılarının, kayıtlı oldukları üniversite ve öğrenme stilleri açısından analiz edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada tarama yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Veri toplama araçları olarak Kolb Öğrenme Stilleri Envanteri ve Teknoloji Algısı Ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Çalışmaya 518 sınıf öğretmeni adayı katılmıştır. Veri analizi için kullanılan ANOVA uygulaması sonucunda, öğretmen adaylarının teknoloji algılarının, öğrenim gördükleri üniversiteler açısından anlamlı bir farklılık gösterdiği, öğrenme stilleri açısından ise istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık göstermediği, üniversite ve öğrenme stilleri değişkenlerinin interaksiyonun da istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık oluşturmadığı tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Teknoloji algısı, Öğrenme stilleri, Üniversite üyeliği.

Kaynakça

1. Al-Ruz, J. A., & Khasawneh, S. (2011). Jordanian pre-service teachers' and technology integration: A human resource development approach. Educational Technology & Society, 14(4), 77-87.
2. Asan, A. (2002). Attitudes of prospective science and social studies teachers toward computers. Educational Research Journal. 7(1), 136-146.
3. Aşkar, P., & Akkoyunlu, B. (1993). Kolbs’ learning styles inventory. Education and Science, (87), 37-47.
4. Brubaker, D.D. (2004). An assessment of technology learning styles, skills, and perceptions among teachers of grades prekindergarten through four. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of North Texas, Texas.
5. Buch, K., & Bartley, S. (2002). Learning style and training delivery mode preference, Journal of Workplace Learning, 14(1), 5-10.
6. Cope, C., & Ward, P. (2002). Integrating learning technology into classrooms: The importance of teachers’ perceptions. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1), 67-70.
7. Dawson, C., & Rakes, G. C. (2003). The influence of principals’ technology training on integration of technology into schools. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1), 29-49.
8. Hadley, M., & Sheingold, K. (1993). Commonalties and distinctive patterns in teachers' integration of computers. American Journal of Education, 101, 261-315.

9. Hasırcı, K. Ö. (2006). Learning styles of prospective primary school teachers: The Çukurova University case. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 2(1), 15-25.
10. İşman, A. (2003). Technology. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(1), 5.
11. İşman, A., Çağlar, M., Dabaj, F., Altınay, F., & Altınay, Z. (2003). Attitudes of students toward computers. III. International Educational Technology Conference and Fair 28-29-30 May 2003 Eastern Mediterranean University Gazimagusa, Cyprus.
12. Kolb, D. A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. In A. W. Chickering & Associates (Eds.), The Modern American College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In R. J. Sternberg & L. Zhang (Eds.), Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles. The educational psychology series (pp. 227-247). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193-212.
15. Koksal, M. S. & Yaman, S. (2009). An Analysis of Turkish Prospective Teachers’ Perceptions about Technology in Education. RELIEVE, 15(2),1-10.
16. Schunk, D. H. (2000). Learning theories: An educational perspective. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
17. Sherwood, C. (1993). Australian experiences with the effective classroom integration of information technology: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education 2, 167-179.
18. Thinkquest, (2007). General learning concepts. Retrieved 20 February, 2007 from http://library.thinkquest.org/C005704/content_hwl_glc.php3#anchor5.
19. Tınmaz, H. (2004). An assessment of preservice teachers’ technology perception in relation to their subject area (Unpublished Master Thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
20. Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relations between teachers’ approaches to teaching and students’ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.
21. Usun, S. (2004). Factors affecting the application of information and communication technologies (ICT) in distance education. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), Retrieved August 31, 2007, from http://www.tojet.sakarya.edu.tr.
22. Vaughan, P. (2007). The "power of perception". Retrieved January 25, 2007 from http://www.dearpeggy.com/com035.html.
23. Venkatesh, V., Morris, F., Davis, A., & Davis, A. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view.MIS Quarterly, 27, 425-478.
24. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.